Mr. Rajan tries to give a illusive trust ‘that all is going to be fine… if government is ….. ” to the middle class in defense of the Bourgeoisie.

His views are antithetical to what he himself proposes: democratic accountability, Equitable Distribution etc., because he proposes ‘Good Governance’ (morphing it with words like democratic accountability etc). Thus he safeguards himself by not speaking against ‘STATE’ (not the geographical division). He also misquotes Marxism by using the word GOVERNMENT. There is no mention of STATE power at all in his article, but he admits of CLASS existence, isn’t this hypocrisy?

He says that // Fukuyama makes a more insightful point than simply that all three traditional aspects of the state – executive, judiciary, and legislature – are needed to balance one another. In sharp contrast to the radical libertarian view that the best government is the minimal “night watchman”, which primarily protects life and property rights while enforcing contracts, or the radical Marxist view that the need for the government disappears as class conflict ends, Fukuyama, as did Huntington, emphasizes the importance of a strong government in even a developed country.// –

first of all, Neither Karl Marx nor Engels or the real life Revolutionaries like Lenin & Mao have stated that ‘Government’ wiil ‘dissppear’, Karl Marx talks about ‘Withering away of the STATE’ – Lenin explains this in detail on “Economic Basis” – emphasis “Economic Basis” in his work titled The State and Revolution – “Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”…. “The expression “the state withers away” is very well-chosen, for it indicates both the gradual and the spontaneous nature of the process”

It is not veracious on the part of Mr. Rajan to manipulate a theory with a motive to either project it as utopian or anarchist… STATE is consequential of historical process which was the cause of arousal of Class & class conflicts. In Lenin’s words, “The State: A Product of the Irreconcilability of Class Antagonisms”. It is in this sense that Marx & Marxists (labeling them radical, in the extremist sense, is highly objectionable) state (as in affirm) that State will Wither away and not ‘disappear’.

The gist of his idea is ‘Reformism’, but when STATE by itself is consequential of antagonisms in a particular mode of ECONOMY, how is that its components like Judiciary (rule of law!!), Legislative (Government) going to be trustworthy of democratic accountability. Moreover today STATE has transpired itself as compradors of CAPITALISM & its offshoots Imperialism, Liberalism, Globalization and so on, and when Intrinsic nature of CAPITALISM is PROFIT – ACCUMULATION OF WEALTH, how will its custodian – the STATE will tolerate / allow – Equitable Distribution of Wealth.

Above all in Capitalism Division of Labor is anarchic and Despotism is the ‘rule of law’ in its functioning, its custodian STATE will also be reciprocal of the same ‘rule of law’, so where is the room for democracy & democratic accounting?

What is Unpardonable in Mr. Rajan’s speech is his reference to CASTE – “ In India, he argues, the caste system led to division of labor” , absolutely ahistorical…

An ahistorical approach, belief in ‘Dharma’, defensive of Private Property – Is he planning to contest as Prime Ministerial Candidate in the near future?